Casooner90, glad to see you got your e-mail talking points from the health insurance lobby. Here is a rebuttal. So much deceit to keep Americans from joining the rest of the industrialized world with universal health care coverage. I do not understand how anyone can support the status quo. I do not understand how a public option affects your coverage if you choose to remain with your insurance provider. I do not understand how people can say we will saddle ourselves with debt when we are already spending so much more on health care than any other country in the world with far less positive outcomes.

"Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!" 

TRUTH: This is not an "audit," it's a study. Moreover, the bill states (pp. 22-23) that the report will "include any recommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of large group insurers and self-insured employers." This is almost directly the opposite of the email's claim.

"Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!"

TRUTH: Page 29 continues to define the "essential benefits package" and discusses limits on what Americans will have to spend on health care under this minimum standard. In no way does this section stipulate the rationing of care.

"Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)" 

TRUTH: Page 30 begins to describe the Health Benefits Advisory Committee which establishes certain minimum standards for health insurance plans. In no way does this committee deny treatments and benefits to Americans with health insurance.

"Page 42: The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None." 

TRUTH: Page 42 begins to describe the Health Choices Commissioner's duties. The idea that this person will decide what benefits Americans receive is patently false, given that most Americans will keep their current plans under reform, and Americans within the exchange will have the choice of purchasing many different kinds of health plans. Rather, the Commissioner will establish minimum standards to protect Americans.

"Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services."

TRUTH: Pages 50-51 contain a provision stating that discrimination will not be allowed in the provision of health care services. Nowhere does the bill state that non-US citizens will be provided free health care services. The bill prohibits federal dollars from being used for undocumented immigrants.

"Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard." 

TRUTH: Page 58, in the context of a discussion of administrative standards, mentions that "determination of an individual's financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility...may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card." In no way does the bill state that such a card would be national, or that it would be issued to every person, or that it would, in fact, be used at all.

"Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer." 

TRUTH: Page 59 continues the discussion of administrative standards, and authorizes electronic transfers of money within the government. In no way does this provision grant the government access to individual bank accounts.

"Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)" 

TRUTH: Here's what page 65 says: "Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees." No mention is made of unions or community organizations.

"Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange." 

TRUTH: That's true! Plans have to have a minimum standard of benefits, bat can offer other plans as well. But that's fair, isn't it? Private insurers can continue to operate outside the exchange if they wish - should the government establish no standards for the exchange? In that case, how could reform end insurance industry abuses and help to control costs?

"Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)" 

TRUTH: This section says is that if private health care plans want to operate in the Exchange, they must provide a basic benefit package. 

"Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens"

TRUTH: Some American citizens are more comfortable speaking a language other than English, especially in a sensitive situation like a consultation with their doctor. This provision in no way opens the door for coverage of undocumented workers.

"Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan." 

TRUTH: Page 95 makes no mention of ACORN and Americorps; all it says is that the Commissioner can conduct outreach to vulnerable populations, making them aware of their options.

"Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter."

TRUTH: People who are eligible for Medicaid will not have to face the burdens of paperwork and other bureaucratic struggles. Far from depriving people of choice, this measure will ensure coverage.

"Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No 'judicial review' is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed."

TRUTH: This section describes rate-setting under the public health insurance plan option, which will compete with private insurers, who can set their own rates. Because of inherent advantages like their established administrative and provider frameworks, private insurance companies will not be "crushed" by government competition.

"Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages." 

TRUTH: The government will negotiate rates with providers under the public health insurance plan option. However, private insurers will continue to pay their own rates.

"Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives."

TRUTH: This is simply not true. Employers with more than 20 employees aren't even eligible to participate in the exchange, let alone the public plan, until several years after the exchange launches in 2013. Moreover, no employer will be forced to participate in the public plan.

"Page 146: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families."

TRUTH: Employers are required to pay some benefits for part-time employees on a basis proportional to what they pay for full-time employees. No language on this page or the next stipulates coverage for the families of part-time employees.

"Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll"

TRUTH: The payroll penalty applies to employers with payroll over $500,000 who do not provide insurance to their employees. The percentage for employers with payroll from $500,000 - $750,000 is 6%. Employers do not have to offer the public option to avoid this penalty, they can offer private insurance if they wish.

"Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll"

TRUTH: This is false, see above.

"Page 167: Any individual who doesn't' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income."

TRUTH: Pages 167-173 detail what "acceptable health care" means (basically, insurance coverage) and also allow for many different kinds of exceptions to this rule.

"Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them)." 

TRUTH: Non-resident aliens do not have to pay the penalty for not having health insurance, nor will the receive federal assistance, because they are not required to purchase health insurance. They are not exempted from individual taxes generally.

"Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records."

TRUTH: This is a gross overstatement. For the purposes of determining affordability credits for Americans who need financial assistance in purchasing health insurance, employees of the Health Choices Administration will have access to tax information that the federal government already keeps. As is clearly stated on page 196, "Return information... may be used by officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, only for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing and verifying the appropriate amount of any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and providing for the repayment of any such credit which was in excess of such appropriate amount.''

"Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that."

TRUTH: This quote is taken out of context, and is in fact referring to a calculation used in the bill. Full context of quote: "'(4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.-The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.''

"Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected." 

TRUTH: This section has nothing whatsoever to do with reducing services.  It makes much needed changes to the way in which physician reimbursement is recalculated every year.  The bill will, in fact, create much more opportunity for seniors and the poor to receive necessary care.

"Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)" 

TRUTH:  Page 241 does not say this.  Nowhere does it say this.  It does say that physicians will be grouped into certain categories regardless of specialty.  These categories merely determine if the physician is engaged in primarily therapeutic or preventative care.

"Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc."

TRUTH: There is no good response to this assertion as it appears to have been made up completely. The section deals with 'misvalued codes' meaning that the government is potentially not paying an acceptable rate for a specific service.  This will allow the government to, for example, pay more for services that require more payment, such as high-overhead procedures.  The author of these criticisms  separately attacks the bill for paying the same rate to all doctors, then attacks again for paying different rates.

"Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries." 

TRUTH: This section amends the Social Security Act to include productivity measures.  There is no mandate or control of anything.  This merely updates the way in which doctors and hospitals are paid through Medicare.

"Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs." 

TRUTH: This is simply not true.  This slightly amends existing guidelines for payments for medical equipment, in this case power-driven wheelchairs.  This section introduces no 'regulations' that are not in the Social Security Act.

"Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!"

TRUTH: Overusage of the hot-button word "rationing" is a way to deflect attention away from the actual language of the bill and incite unjustified fear.  This section only compares costs incurred by cancer hospitals to costs incurred by similar hospitals, and adjusts payments to reduce the possibility of fraud and abuse.

"Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions." 

TRUTH:  This is almost correct.  The section is one of the first efforts at targeting excessive readmissions.  Excessive readmissions are physically and emotionally damaging to patients, while simultaneously putting them, and the health care system, in far more financial risk than is necessary.  The American Hospital Association recommended reduced payments for avoidable readmission in testimony to Congress.

"Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government." 

TRUTH: This is patently false.  The section is about possible methods that the Secretary of Health and Human services might consider in order to address the growing problem of patient readmission.  This section does not, in any way, create a penalty, nor does it even mandate policy.  It merely provides examples of recourses that might be considered.

"Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited from owning and investing in healthcare companies!"

TRUTH: This provision only limits Doctor's investments in health care facilities that they refer patients to  The effort to limit self-referral has been ongoing for many years as an effort to reduce fraud and abuse.  This is, essentially, the medical community equivalent of insider trading.  Limiting this incentive works to put the patient's health above all other considerations.  Doctors remain free to engage in investment opportunities in areas that don't create a significant conflict of interest.

"Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval."

TRUTH: This section regulates physicians' investment in hospitals to make sure that physicians are not unfairly benefiting from their power to refer patients to hospitals they have a stake in. The section does not prohibit hospital expansion.

"Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on 'community' input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN."

TRUTH: In the ongoing effort to demonize community-based groups such as ACORN, every instance of the word "community" has become associated with that group's efforts.  In reality, this provision allows for anyone to provide input.  This includes homeowners, religious leaders, neighborhood groups, and others.  There are no payoffs.  There is no money exchanged in any way.

"Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing." 

TRUTH: This provision is included in order to allow the government to base payments on practices that work.  Nowhere does it say health care will be rationed.  The attempt to isolate what works and what does not work in Medicare Advantage plans only benefits the health care system in general.

"Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc."

TRUTH: The government can disqualify some Medicare Advantage Plans from receiving some additional payments, but only if those plans are not meeting necessary requirements.

"Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals." 

TRUTH: This section only deals with how to handle special needs individuals who need to enroll outside of the open enrollment period.  Almost every type of plan operates with open enrollment periods.  This section does not create more restrictions.

"Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone)."

TRUTH:  This section merely expands existing Telehealth programs, which supplement but do not replace other health coverage, and provide a vital resource to Americans in rural and remote areas.

"Page 425-430: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?; Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time; Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death; Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends; Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT; Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life." 

TRUTH: All of these hysterical claims have been debunked elsewhere. HR3200 provides for the reimbursement of a voluntary session of end-of-life counseling with your physician once every five years. This in no way means the government will make decisions for patients or encourage doctor-assisted suicide. Counseling simply makes patients and their families aware of their options.

"Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN." 

TRUTH: ACORN is not a Community-Based Medical Home.

"Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN."

TRUTH: This is clearly still referring to community health groups, not ACORN. 

"Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage."

TRUTH: Covering marriage and family therapy, as many private insurance plans do, does not mean that the government "intervenes in your marriage." The types of individuals who are recognized as therapists are clearly defined on page 491; in brief, professionals only, not bureaucrats.

"Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services."

TRUTH: This section expands government coverage for mental health services under various government programs, and ensures that all mental health services will be offered by qualified professionals.

thanks for the rebuttal adam, i think it is very important that people see both side of the argument. furthermore, thanks for not using fear mongering words.

Nice to hear another OPINION of how this will work. I have no time or desire to post the exact language of the downsides of this disasterous bill. The good thing is that enough people on both sides and in the middle spoke up that the administration wasn't able to shove this bill up our ying-yangs without anyone knowing what it said. The reasons for Obama's "hurry up or we'll all be destroyed" mentality are obvious. He thinks he(or his handlers, anyway)is the smartest person in the country, obviously having forgotten that the people aren't as sheepish as he once thought. They(I say "they" because I had him pegged back in the primaries) actually learned something from the stimulus packages that have done NOTHING to help the economy.

This healthcare issue is akin to religion in that some people are so desperate for something to believe in that they will believe almost anything anyone wearing a decent set of clothes tells them. It's a good thing that there really aren't enough desperate people to allow the scheisters in this administration to sell their snake oils without even having to bring out the phony old man.

Adam, Adam,

Just how YOUNG and nieve are you? Canadians, (who have their universal health care), are coming to the U.S. for health care in droves. WHY?  Waiting times...  Would you feel comfortable waiting for an MRI for months knowing you might have cancer that needs diagnosing?  Do you think you wait a long time now to see your doc?  Just wait if this train wreck passes!

You know, motopoet, health care reform is not a " 'hurry up or we'll all be destroyed' " situation. As a history buff, maybe you know that health care for all Americans has been discussed and argued about for more than 60 years now. President Truman pushed for it in 1948. Even President Nixon thought the value of universal health care had political merit, but was convinced by the insurance industry and health providers that a different plan would get him more votes. We know the Clintons met Harry and Louise fifteen years ago, and the population has been paying through the nose ever since that deceitful series of insurance advertisements ran. This is no "hurry up" issue. We have the world's other major nations to look to and learn from regarding what works and what does not work. We have had discussions forever pouring over all the ramifications of financial and health options that would go into a reform bill. The people who want to stall are the people entrenched in today's gouge health market of profiting the few while injuring the multitude.

But moving a giant boulder of obstruction and greed is hard work, and most Americans do not seem able to focus long enough on getting this difficult rock rolling for their ultimate benefit. The time is now to get rid of job lock. The time is now to provide a public option that will free small business from exhorbitant costs that insurers levy against them because of one illness, or accident, within the ranks of their policy. The time is now to rid ourselves of the worries and fears of financial ruin due to illness or accident. 

It has been 60 years of wait  for Americans with so many being unfairly punished and crushed under the weight of this rigged stone. This is not religion, this is demanding the government do the right thing, and do it now!

You are a walking contradiction, motopoet.

casooner90:  Thanks for bringing this out.  The trouble is that ordinary people think they can interpret what these things say, and IMO it can't be done.  The guys putting this together have lawyers poring over every last detail.  And if every i isn't dotted and every t crossed, there is wiggle room.  And if there's wiggle room, the administration is going to be doing the boogy.  Who loses?  American people of all ages, shapes and sizes.  Maybe even some non-Americans, too.  (Who, incidentally, in my opinion have no right to American taxpayer-funded health insurance or health care except for emergencies and epidemics.)  And the administration boogies.

markhanc, you need to get out in the world a little more. The health insurance industry is currently spending more than a million dollars everyday to lie to you about what the Canadians have and how wonderful Americans have it with their health care coverage. Many Americans do enjoy great coverage, but at a cost that is double what other citizens in other countries pay for better health outcomes.

We as a nation are ranked for health outcomes below what France, Germany, England, Japan, Spain, Canada and thirty other nations in the world. Check the World Health Organization for the results and studies. Wait times in America for specialists can be extensive, just like in Canada. What your Republican whores for health care dollars will not share with you is that Canada and the United States have a cooperative working relationship between many hospitals and clinics that allow for citizens in Canada, due to population sparseness in certain provinces, to come to American hospitals or clinics to receive care. It is one of those government policies that the health insurance industry conveniently chooses to not inform the American public about when railing against socialized medicine. Don't take my word for it. Go to NPR and read about it for yourself.

Do you work for Aetna, Cigna, WellPoint, Health Net or Kaiser? If not why do you believe everything they tell you?

Page489, government intervening in your marriage.

The right wing has had the government intervening in our marriages forever. Opponents of Prop 8 and supporters of no-fault divorce are working to eliminate that intervention.

Adam glad to see you get your talking points from the whitehouse propaganda arms.

Instead of reading adam's rebuttal, why not forward this to someone that actually works in the medical industry?   If you think you can read through and decipher for your self, here is the link to the bill.  Good luck.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo...

Thanks for the rebuttal Adam. Unfortunately, you could counteract the FUD until you are blue in the face and certain people would still cling to the FUD because "their" side said it and you're just one of them "wacky liberals". They are the reason the FUD is even there to begin with, because certain politicians and lobbyists know it works. Get the fear going and reason flies out the door.

adam~ you know how much I appreciate your posts.

This really isn't about who is more right or who is more wrong.  This really ought to be how to pay for this as (I state once again) goverment do not generate income.  Do you have a stake in this or are you at the beneficial end?  This massive program is another example of government's fiscal irresponsibility and their great plan is to tax the 'rich'.  Before you go off on one of your 'one-off' stories, the thought of everyone having a medical coverage is nice.  But, many in this country would rather pay for their next ipod rather than pay the insurance premium and what about the undocumented illegals.  I pay more than my fair share in taxes so I would be at a disadvantage if this program goes through (again, rewarding bad behavior while suppressing positive behaviors like hard work and dedication and fiscal responsibility).  So, before you go off and dismiss this post as another 'right wing wacko', you should be looking at how will this effect you, your kids and generations thereafter that will have to fund this massive program.   Of course, if you're one of the 50% that don't even pay taxes, I've got nothing to say - you don't have a dog in the fight.

(I state once again) goverment do not generate income.  

Do insurance companies?   How?

How does your plan address the folks that want to buy insurance, but are turned down every time they apply? What about the ones who have insurance right up until the point they become ill and suddenly the insurance company finds a way to dump their policy? How do you propose we handle those people who have the money and don't want to spend it on an iPod, but just aren't considered "insurable" so they can't get accepted at any health insurance company?

Insurance companies generate revenue through the product they sell and the consumers are willing to pay - do you understand capitalism?  Government do not generate income - they tax unfairly.

Shwaine, are you asking me?  Am I the presidential candidate pushing for nationalized medicine?  Hey, all I know is that the burden of nationalized healthcare shouldn't be put on the backs of few.  If you are willing to share the burden (and everyone else is) and we all pitch in our fair share, then I'm in.  But, the way things are layed out, I would have to pay more than most simply because I am successful?  How does that make any sense and what country / regime should that make sense in? 

All I (and many right wing nut jobs) want is fairness.  We all pay our fair share of taxes and have a governent that is fiscally responsible.  In simple terms, I'm really not asking for much.

Yes I'm asking you, because saying "no" to Obama is not sufficient. Offer up viable alternatives instead.

Insurance companies generate revenue through the product they sell and the consumers are willing to pay

The "product" they sell is roughly equivalent to the "product" sold by bookies.  Except that bookies who fail to pay off don't stay in business, unlike Blue Cross.

What insurance companies do is pool risk.  Period.  They don't have a "product" as such anymore than fire departments do.  Government can do that better, and cheaper.

Thank You Adam for posting the rebuttal. It's so important for us to be louder than the people that desire nothing more than the status quo when it comes to healthcare. Unstable American, Glenn Beck nearly caused a riot with his drones going to a town hall meeting. The Pro-insurance lobby and the right wing has pledged to each other to disrupt every single town hall meeting so that they can create the appearance that Americans don't want health care changed. We have to make sure that the 70% of us that do want change don't get drowned out by all the shouting.

Time to call your represenatives~ today.

My rep's McCarthy.  One of his major contributors is the insurance industry.

I know :-) make the call anyway.

I'm pretty sure McCarthy would vote no, and it wouldn't even matter what was in the bill. With all that money from the insurance industry, he would be biting the hand that feeds him. 

Won't hurt to contact him anyway.  And Costa, though he's a Blue Dog.

Lots of Republicans are going to wind up voting for the reconciliation bill.  Our job is to get that bill to include the public option.

 Expanding Health Coverage May Not Improve Access

FRIDAY, Aug. 7 (HealthDay News) -- Even if Congress extends health coverage to the nation's 46 million uninsured Americans, there's no guarantee that everyone will have access to care -- unless payment reforms and new models of care are adopted, some experts say.

Significantly expanding coverage without reforming health-care delivery is "a recipe for failure," said Alwyn Cassil, a spokeswoman for the Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington, D.C. "You won't be able to sustain the expanded coverage because it will just bankrupt us."

Spending on health care this year is projected to reach $2.5 trillion, or 17.6 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of Medicare and Medicaid data. That's up from 7.2 percent in 1970, and by 2018 it could swell to one-fifth of the GDP, which is a measure of all goods and services produced in the United States.

Meanwhile, a worsening shortage of primary-care providers and rising demand for certain specialists will continue to strain the system, perhaps creating long waits for appointments.

The existing health-care delivery system cannot seamlessly respond to a surge in demand for services, said Jeffrey Bauer, a medical economist.

This is "one of the Achilles heels of reform," said Bauer, management consulting partner at Affiliated Computer Services Inc. and leader of the health futures practice at ACS Healthcare Solutions in Chicago.

"People are already strapped to get a doctor," Bauer said. "As more people have insurance, they will try to get appointments with more doctors, and that will lead to dramatic increases in the time it takes to get an appointment."

Depending on the coverage people have, where they live and whether they have an existing relationship with a physician, some Americans could encounter long delays in getting in to see a doctor.

In Boston, the average wait time for an appointment with a family physician is 63 days -- the highest among 15 metropolitan markets surveyed by the national physician recruitment firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates in Irving, Texas. The 15-city average was 20.3 days.

Boston's long wait times may be driven by Massachusetts' 2006 health reform legislation, which expanded health insurance coverage to nearly everyone in the state, Merritt, Hawkins noted. Many health policy experts worry that similar access problems will be experienced nationwide if Congress enacts legislation extending health insurance coverage.

Patients on Medicaid already have difficulty accessing health-care providers, according to a recent national online consumer survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) Health Research Institute. Nearly a third of Medicaid patients reported waiting 30 days or more for an appointment with a doctor.

What's more, many Americans still use the emergency room inappropriately. According to PWC's consumer survey, more than half of those who went to the emergency room in the last year did so for non-emergency reasons.

"One of the key things that we have found is that the emergency room turns out to be the front door for many folks trying to gain access into the health-care system," said Dr. David Chin, a principal in PricewaterhouseCoopers and leader of its Health Research Institute.

The Institute's findings appear in a new report, "Jammed access: Widening the front door to healthcare".

To improve access without boosting the cost of care, some health-care organizations across the country are experimenting with different models of care, the report finds. One is the use of online consultations for patients who don't require a face-to-face visit.

"Many insurers now are, in fact, engaged in pilots to pay for electronic visits," Chin said.

Another is the growing use of mobile electronic devices to monitor, say, a patient's blood sugar or blood pressure and transmit the results by cell phone to the patient's doctor.

The report also spotlights growth in retail and work-site clinics and notes that some health organizations are exploring a model of care in which a team of health-care providers works collaboratively to address a patient's health-care needs.

But creating a system of care that encourages coordination-of-care will require a shift away from the traditional fee-for-service method of reimbursement, Cassil noted. "How we address payment reform will have everything to do with how the delivery system becomes more efficient."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn...--

I received a  phone call from Kevin McCarthy yesterday inviting me to the phone hall meeting he was holding to discuss the health care bill. Congressman Kevin McCarthy calls you to talk health care reform.   I was happily listening and paying attention as he answered questions from his constituents regarding their concerns on this topic.   I unexpectedly lost all audio during one of KM's answers.   I waited patiently then finally I hung up and went back to mopping my bathroom floor.  Oh well.  I'll have to send him an email with my questions about coverage for nonstandard non FDA approved treatments with FDA approved drugs.

I'm wondering just how bi-partisan that tele-townhall McCarthy held was. I notice the article doesn't mention anything about the percentage of participants who were Dem, Rep and Decline to State. I can guess at the percentages though given that they did say 96% of the callers didn't support reform.

Shwaine, I'd bet that most of the Dems that were called hung up. I know I did. I'm sorry, but I know darn well Kevin McCarthy doesn't care what I think. He's got his big insurance donors to tell him how to vote.

How can anyone seriously not want healthcare reformed. We spend the highest rate per person in the world and get about the 30th best care (well, those that actually get care). What happened to wanting this country to be the best?